00:00:12,900	All right, it is 5 o’clock. I’d like to welcome everyone in attendance this evening here in the Baker meeting room and those online as well as uh all, all our commissioners to this meeting of the Bismarck Planning and Zoning Commission, and it is January 28th, and with that I will, uh, call the

00:00:32,270	meeting to order and the, uh, first item on my agenda this evening before we do anything else is I’ve got 3 new commissioners sitting with us.

00:00:51,630	I’m quite happy to say, and I guess, um I’d like to offer them an opportunity to to introduce themselves and to, uh, say maybe a word or two about themselves before we get the meeting rolling. So, Al, would you like to, Comm Wangler, would you like to start? Thank you, Chair. Um, my name is E Wagner. I’ve been a resident of Bismarck for I don’t know, 65+ years.

00:01:15,900	Um I do sit on the board of Adjustments and um I, I, I watch City Commission, countycom Commission, school board meetings. um interesting and I just thought I’ve got time now that I’m retired and I’d like to be involved, so that’s. why I threw my hat in the ring Well, thank you so much for joining us. Welcome. Thank you.

00:01:41,070	And, uh Comm Swanson uh, thank you. Um, my name is Connor Swanson. I’ve been a Bismarck resident for just a year now, um, but grew up here in North Dakota from B Boer, North Dakota, and I’m happy to be here, um. yeah, just happy to be here Thank you and Comm Taylor I’m Kendra Taylor.

00:02:06,170	Um I’ve lived here for quite some time. I’m raising 3 little kids here, um. I’m also just happy to be here Very good. Thank you. Thank you all for joining. With that, Sarah, would you please call roll? Comm Bitner E Comm Field Mr. Johnson, Comm Schell, here, Comm Schmitz Yeah. Comm Seva Comm Swanson. Comm Taylor Comm Wangan Comm Wenglercher Schwartz, here.

00:02:39,800	Thank you. With that, we will move on to the first item on our agenda this evening, which is approval of our December 17, 2025 minutes. Commissioners, what are your wishes? Move to approve. We have a motion from Comm Johnson to approve? Do I hear a second? 2nd. The second from Comm Schell.

00:03:02,730	Comm, any discussion I’m not hearing or seeing any. Sarah, please call Roll. Comm Johnson, yes, Comm Wengler. Yes. Comm Schell. Yes Comm Schmidt Yes. Mrer Bitner. Yes. Comm Swanson, Yes, Comm Taylor, and Chair Schwartz. Yes, the motion is approved.

00:03:32,630	With that, we will move on to the public comments section of our meeting this evening and uh I’ll open up the public comment. It is limited to items that appeared on the agenda for our December 17th meeting or any item that appears in the consent agenda for this evening’s meeting and, uh the rules are you have 5 minutes to address a the commission if you so wish Is there anyone that would care

00:03:56,630	to step up to the podium. Ca once calling twice and calling 3 times. With that, I’m gonna close the public, um, the public comment period and we will move on to our consent agenda this evening. and we have 3 3 items in our consent agenda, the first being JFP Foxhan subdivision.

00:04:26,070	and the request there is for a major street plan amendment, a zoning map amendment. and a major subdivision preliminary plat. Uh, staff recommendation is to call for a public hearing on all three. The next item, which is B, is Boulder Ridge 8th edition. and that is a call for a zoning map amendment.

00:04:47,430	a major and a major subdivision preliminary plat. once again, staff’s recommendation is to call for a public hearing. and the final item in our consent agenda is C, which is clear sky’s 2nd edition.

00:05:10,600	and that is a request for a zoning map amendment and a major subdivision preliminary plat and once again staff’s recommendation is to call for a public hearing for both. Commissioners, what are your wishes regarding the uh consent agenda this evening. Motion to call for a public hearing Thank you, Comm Bitner. We have a motion to, to call, and we have a second from Comm Johnson.

00:05:31,730	Any discussion? And I’m not seeing or hearing any. With that, Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Johnson, Comm Swanson. Yes, Comm Wengler. Comm Schell, Comm Schmitz Comm Schmitz. Yes, I’m sorry. That’s OK. Thank you, Comm Bittner. Yes. Comm Taylor, and Char Schwartz. Yes, the motion is approved.

00:06:04,330	With that, we’ll move on to our regular agenda this evening, and the first item on our regular agenda is Boulder Ridge’s 7th edition, secondary Platt, and I believe Lauren is going to provide us with staff report this evening. Uh, good evening, Chair Schwartz and Commissioners. Um, I did hand out uh an extra item prior to this meeting.

00:06:26,900	I will describe that further on in my report to you, um, but I just wanted to make you aware that it is provided to you here as well as it will be showing up on the screen for anyone watching online.

00:06:46,500	um, so the new development company E is requesting approval of a minor subdivision final plot titled Boulder Ridge, 7th edition, 2nd Replat. The project area is comprised of 10.83 acres and is located in North Bismarck, east of North Washington Street south of Fifty-seventh Avenue between Flint Drive and Calvert Drive.

00:07:12,100	Um, the proposed plot is a replat of lots, 1 and 2, block 3 Boulder Ridge, 7th edition, 1st replat, the proposed plot would uh create 11 lots in one block. Um, the property is currently, uh, zoned RM-15 residential, uh, and has been identified as Nehood mixed use in the future land use plan.

00:07:38,330	Adjacent uses include Saint Mary’s High School to the north across fifty-seventh Avenue, Northeast, um, some row houses and two family residential to the east across Calvert Drive, um, some developing single family residential to the south across Marble Drive and undeveloped land, uh, west across Flint Drive. Uh, the public was notified of this request. A notice was published in the Bismarck Tribune on January 16th and 23rd and 49 postcards were mailed to the owners of nearby properties on January 16th of this month.

00:07:58,530	Uh, physical sign as well was uh provi uh that provided information on the public hearing was placed, uh, in a publicly accessible spot on January 12th as well. Staff did receive one phone call from an adjacent property owner.

00:08:19,070	Um, they were just looking for some additional information on the project, um, but I didn’t indicate if they were for or against the project. Um, to my knowledge, staff has not received any, uh, formal public comments regarding this request. In addition to the general public notification requirements both North Dakota Century Code and the city’s zoning ordinance include notification requirements for the applicant.

00:08:42,370	Um, in particular, the city’s zoning ordinance requires a certified letter, uh, be sent no later than 10 days, uh, before the hearing and entry code requires a certified letter be sent no later than 5 days.

00:09:04,230	Um, as, uh, referenced within the staff report, the applicant and their consultant received notification updates throughout the application process, um, including notification of the potential public hearing, uh, of tonight’s meeting. Um, however, they required certified letter was not sent in the time period reference within the city zoning ordinance but did meet state requirements.

00:09:22,900	Uh, the applicant and their consultant were made aware of this error, and the required certified letter, uh, again was sent to the applicant on January 22nd, which does meet state law requirements. The applicant has requested that the requirements noted within the city’s ordinance, uh, be waived in order to meet the expected, uh, project timeline for a minor subdivision final plat.

00:09:45,500	um, the planning and zoning Commission have waived, uh, other zoning ordinance requirements in the past, uh, and this request may mirror those decisions as the intent of the zoning ordinance to notify the applicant was upheld and state law was met. A copy of the waiver for the certified letter requirement is attached within the staff report for your review.

00:10:07,700	The request was evaluated according to standards contained in the Comprehensive plan, Code of Ordinances and relevant state law. Um, the proposed plat attached to the staff report had a minor issue with the noted lot depths for lots 2 through 6, as shown on the on that platform with your staff report, uh, it had

00:10:29,100	it at 113. The minimum lot depth for a row house within the ordinance is 115. Um, so 2 ft difference. The applicant, um, was made aware of that and fixed it, uh, uh, and provided the updated flat for approval tonight.

00:10:50,970	Um, as you can see on the screen here this is the one included within the staff report and an updated one was provided to you earlier. Um the applicant has also submitted a written justification for the private street, which is attached in the staff report as well for the use of a private private drive adjacent to lots 2 through 11, um, noting that a site plan for the Roho

00:11:13,530	development, uh, was already approved and the dedication of a public right away would create some setback violations for the structures that are currently in place. Um, staff have requested that assigned private private utility agreement be submitted prior to recordation of the plot.

00:11:37,630	As a result of all findings contained in the staff report, City of Bismarck staff find that the proposed minor subdivision final plot would not adversely impact the public health, safety, and general welfare and is consistent with the comprehensive plan code of ordinances and state law with the inclusion of those certain conditions.

00:11:58,730	Um, therefore, staff recommends approval of the updated, uh, minor subdivision final plot that was provided to you tonight, uh, for Boulder Ridge, 7th edition, 2nd Replat with the following two conditions.

00:12:19,100	He signed private drive, private utility agreement is submitted prior to recordation of the plot and the Title 14 requirement for a certain letter, uh, or for a certified letter sent at least 10 days prior to the hearing is waived with the understanding that it was sent at least 5 days prior to the hearing. It accordance with North Dakota Century Code. Do you have any questions Commissioners, questions for Lauren.

00:12:40,100	Comm Micchell Lauren, my question or a series of questions isn’t so much on the plat, but it’s probably more so on the site plan that’s already approved and building permits that have already been pulled, um, I guess has from your understanding planning staff comfortable with the building permits that are issued as it relates to where these new property lines would be located that were not

00:12:55,430	somehow carving up a a building in half or, or does it change any of the building code requirements. Now that this would be a shared property line as opposed to just a, uh, a common wall between one larger par c el Can you maybe just speak to those concerns?

00:13:09,730	Uh, thank you, uh, Comm Schell, Chair Commissioners, um, so as, uh, there, there’s an item in attached to the staff report, um, kind of showing where the, the proposed building layout is for each of those lots, um, just to make sure that it would meet a relevant easements, uh, as well as, uh, setback

00:13:30,100	requirements, um, related to a row house, um, regarding, uh any changes to, uh, building permit requirements. I would not be able to answer that at this time. And then maybe 11 follow up question.

00:13:55,270	Would the change of this plat moving because it looks like the boundary of Lots 2 through 11 remained the same, but just that internal line, the the the outer boundary remained the same, but that internal line that split them moved over a couple of feet from what was in the, the staff report, does that present any issues or is it just gonna be that the road isn’t centered in the middle of the common line.

00:14:08,630	It’s going to have more on one side or the other. Uh, another great question, Comm Schell Chair Commissioners, um, you’re correct. It was just that north-south uh, line, um, that would be moved slightly to the east, um, the center line just wouldn’t be there.

00:14:32,530	Um, it should still meet requirements, um, for the setbacks, uh, as well as, um, easement placements as well. thank you Thank you, Comm Schell. Comm, any additional questions forlorn? I’m not seeing you hear, hearing any Lan. Thank you. With that, I will open up the public hearing for this agenda item and would either the requester or representative, and I see landon is stepping up, so Thank you, Chry Schwarzio.

00:14:54,100	Lanna Naimler with Swensson Hagen Engineering, uh, representing the new development company. Yeah, just add a little bit of uh detail to what Laurn had presented already. Uh, typically in a situation like this, you see it in a little bit of a different order.

00:15:05,330	Typically you’d see it as plat first and then we would come back later and and do a site plan and then start construction. Um, in this case, the season was sort of wrapping up last year and we wanted to get the uh foundation in the ground, uh, so the builders could start working through the winter.

00:15:19,630	So we submitted a site plan, got that approval done, uh, construction has begun, a foundation is in place for the, for the furthest east building.

00:15:33,430	And now we’re coming behind just to split up those lots, um, as most of you probably are, are aware, uh, property ownership is, is just a little easier for them to do with financing and things like that. So when people want to buy, um, one of these rural homes, it’s easier for them to get financing when they actually own the land as well as opposed to uh an unslit difference between the the entire property.

00:15:47,730	Um in addition to that to, to, to reference some of Comm Schell’s questions, you know, the, the, the, the property lines will be going down that common wall, but they’re already constructed with that firewall that would meet fire code as though there are property line there, even though there weren’t at the time.

00:16:02,000	That’s how they are constructed, um, but I can certainly answer any questions if you have them. Commissioners, any follow-up questions for landing? Mr. M Schell landing a lot of the attention is being placed on the, the parcels on the east side of this, this property, but there’s still the one large lot remaining on the, the West, you know, 34 or 56 or whatever that

00:16:20,470	fraction is, um, can you maybe speak to what the future would be of that lot in in in the likelihood that it would be replatted, I guess is what I’m trying to think of and specifically on the lot.

00:16:34,230	numbers that we’re assigning to this, if there’s any value in if, if we think lot one’s gonna be replanted in the future. Should that really be lot 11 and then you use lots 1 through 10 for the area that is likely not to be replaited.

00:16:45,530	Maybe my mind just thinks that way is kind of throwing the number at the end that was going to be replat in the future as opposed to leaving yourself lots 2 through 11 indefinitely, but can you speak to that? Yeah, thank you, Comm Rochelle.

00:16:58,800	So as I mentioned before, a site plan has been approved for those furthest east slots, but also some additional buildings that are to be constructed west of the sort of the split up area, um, we’re not constructing them at this time because some of this is based on the market.

00:17:10,530	If these first two buildings sell quite well, they would keep that original design that we have that we’ve done to have this site plan approved, and then we would come back and split up those lots, um, and likely that we just continue on and there’d be further splits as we go. So, yes, one would almost certainly go away and it would be replaced with lots 1 through 20 of the next preplat.

00:17:24,530	Um, as far as numbering of lots is concerned, we could certainly flip those around. It doesn’t really affect us in any, in any way. If it’s easier for the city to say, yeah, make that the last lot because it’s, it ’ s going to be irrelevant to the, to the order of things. We can certainly do that.

00:17:39,370	Maybe my fault would be for staff if they had an opinion one way or the other, if that’s a value or, or not. Yeah, I support that. I think it, it’s, you know, a minor change, but it, there, there’s a little bit of value.

00:17:51,630	I mean these will last as lots forever, so I think having a 1 through 10 is easier to understand a 2 through 11. OK, thank you. Thank you, Comm Schell. Commissioners, additional questions for Laon. I’m not seeing or hearing anyone. Thank you. Thank you.

00:18:10,900	With that, the podium is open for others that would care to speak to this agenda item. and I’m not seeing her any seeing or hearing anybody step up. So with that, I’m going to close the public hearing. Uh, Lauren, any final comments? Uh, uh, just a reminder, the, the approval that would be requested tonight would be for that updated version of the plot. OK, thank you.

00:18:35,370	All right. With that, uh, commissioners, this is a request for a minor subdivision final plat, and there are two conditions attached to it, and as Laura indicated it would be for the drawing that we received this evening.

00:18:54,230	So what are your wishes I move to approve with the, as presented with the conditions, but with also the request that uh lot one is exchanged with a lot 11, uh, or and then I should say. the remaining lots are just redistributed in, in whatever manner that makes the most sense. OK. Thank you, Comm Schell OK, we have a second from Comm Swanson. With that any additional discussion.

00:19:15,900	and I’m not seeing or hearing any, so with that, Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Johnson, Comm Schmitz Yes. Comm Wengler, Comm Swanson, yes, Comm Schell, Comm Taylor. Comm Bitner. Yes. and Sir Schwartz, yes, the motion is approved.

00:19:41,270	With that, we’ll move on to item B in our regular agenda, which is Cottonwood Park View Edition First Replat block 1 lots 2 through 9, and I believe Isaac is gonna provide us with a staff report this evening. Yes, thank you, Chair Schwartz and Commissioners.

00:20:02,000	This next regular agenda item comes to us from Edgewood REIT who are requesting approval of a zoning map amendment from the Conditional R10 residential zoning district to the RM10 residential zoning District 4ur lots 2 through 9 block 1 of Cottonwood Park View Edition first replat. As you can see on the screen here, this project is located in South Bismarck, south of Santa Fe Avenue, north of Rutland Drive along the West side of Camrose Drive there.

00:20:24,370	The project area consists of approximately 1.71 acres and there is a, a quick point of clarification that I’ll make it this time. So the applicant has uh is is using the proposed zoning district to ultimately combine the eight parcels into 1 parcel with all the existing buildings.

00:20:45,170	On the first page of the staff report, you’ll see that the existing to proposed says 8 lots in one block and then no change for the proposed condition that is technically true because this zoning map Aendment request is not officially facilitating that.

00:21:07,000	The applicant has submitted a separate lock combination request that does not come before the planning and zoning Commission here, but the end goal eventually is to combine these 8 parcels into 1 parcel, but that is technically separate, but I just want to make sure we’re all clear on that.

00:21:24,270	So no changes are being proposed to the structures themselves by the landowner as far as staff is aware and then both the existing zoning district right now, and the proposed zoning district would permit the existing building types in the same density of units, things like that, um, the proposed RM 10 resent ral zoning district would ultimately permit all of these buildings to be on one parcel, whereas the existing conditional R10 would only permit these on separate lots as they are right now.

00:21:46,530	The RM10, they could be on the same lot or on separate lots, but in our 10 they can only be on separate, not the same lot, and uh one other note on the conditional R10 right now, that existing zoning district, that only extra condition on there is that it limits the uses to strict

00:22:03,070	ly to family dwellings. So what you see right now, um, but the proposed RM1im is not being proposed with any conditions as of right now. The area is in a residenttially zoned area, so there’s a variety of single family, two family and resident, uh, multi-family residential units uh around the property and the

00:22:24,700	project area in the future land use plan is described as urban neighborhood, which is broadly described as places for quiet enjoyment of home life.

00:22:43,630	Uh, the public was notified of this request via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on January 16th and 23rd, and 62 postcards were mailed to owners of nearby properties on January 16, 2025 as well. And then additionally a physical sign providing information on the public hearing was placed in a publicly accessible spot in the project, uh, at the project location on January 12, 2025.

00:23:03,430	Uh, to my knowledge, staff has not received any inquiries or questions or written comments prior to this hearing. So as a cumulative result of all findings contained in the staff reports, uh, Ci Bismarck staff find that the proposed zoning map amendment would not adversely impact public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan Bismarck

00:23:20,530	Code of Ordinances and relevant state law. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment from the Conditional R10 residential zoning district to the RM 10 residential zoning district for lots 2 through 9 cotton block 1, Cottonwood Parkview edition first replat. Does the Commission have any questions for me at this time.

00:23:46,630	Comm, questions for Isaac Comm Schell Isaac, are there any, uh, landscaping requirements that would come along with this change from a R10 to an RM 10. Thank you, uh, Comm Schell, Chair, Schwartz and Commissioners, in this particular case, everything is um existing, therefore, there would be no additional landscaping requirements put in. as a result of this Thank you, Comm Schell.

00:24:09,630	Commissioners, any additional questions for Isaac? I’m not seeing or hearing any, Isaac. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I’ll open the public hearing for this, uh, agenda item would either the requester or representative be here.

00:24:30,170	Good evening, Chair Comm Nicholas Cullen with Houston Engineering here representing the property owners for the request, and here to answer any questions that you may have. Questions for Nick Comm Schell because Nick for the record, are there any intentions for the owner to, to demolish the existing buildings and build something else. There is not at all. Thank you. You’re welcome. Again, I’ll ask questions for Nick.

00:24:53,370	I have a question for you, Nick, because this fascinates me just a little bit. If you can share, why is it advantageous to comb combine There’s a financial savings in terms of taxes for the property owner to combine all of their own individual parcels into one multi

00:25:12,000	parcel. OK. I was suspicious of that, but I thought I’d ask. Yes All right, uh, Comm Schell. maybe just another piece for context, uh, Nick, would this, if it was combined, be similar to the property across the street on cameras that has similar two unit buildings, but

00:25:29,730	8 or 10 of them or whatever it is on one parcel, that is the goal to mimic exactly across the street. OK, thank you. You’re welcome. And again, any questions for Nick Thank you. You’re welcome. With that, the podium is open for others that would care to speak to this agenda item.

00:25:47,870	and I’m not seeing or hearing anybody stepping up. So with that, I’m going to close a public hearing. uh, any additional comments, Isaac? None at this time, Chair. Thank you. All right, thank you. With that, Commissioners, this is a request for a zoning map amendment.

00:26:06,000	Staff’s recommendation is to approve What are your wishes Motion to approve. We have a motion to approve from Comm Johnson. OK At a second from Comm was that Comm Schmitz, thank you. All right, so we have a motion and a second on the table.

00:26:31,170	Any discussion? Comm Wangler My question would be, is this in my neighborhood? Is there a conflict with me voting on it. I mean, I live about 3 blocks from it is No. Not an issue. Thank you. Thank you for asking OK. With that, no discussion, Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Johnson? Yes, Comm Swanson, yes, Comm Wengler, yes. Comm Bittner Yes.

00:26:57,230	Comm Schell? Yes, Comm Schmitz Yes, Comm Taylor, Chair Schwartz, yes, the motion is approved. With that, we’ll move on to I C in our regular agenda, which is Edwards Village, 7th edition, 2nd Replat, and once again Isaac will provide us with staff report. Yes, good evening again, Chair Schwartz and Commissioners.

00:27:20,270	Uh, this next regular agenda item also comes to us from Edgewood REIT, who is, uh, in this case requesting approval of a zoning map amendment from an R10 residential zoning district to an RM10 residential zoning district might sound a little familiar, but also there is a minor subdivision final plat, uh, in accompanying with this one.

00:27:41,600	So that new uh proposed plot would be titled Edgewood Village, 7th Edition, 2nd Replatt. This project, as you can see on the screen here, is located in Northeast Bismarck, east of Nebraska Drive, uh, West of Oklahoma Lane and on the north side of Knutson Avenue. This project consists of about 10.

00:28:01,900	55 acres and is a replat of Los 1 through 50 block 1 Edgewood Village, 7th edition First Replat. So this particular minor plat will change the existing 50 lots in one block to a one lot in one block subdivision, and the zoning map Amendment portion that is accompanying this will change the entire replatted area from the existing R10 to the RM 10 residential zoning

00:28:24,230	district, um, similarly to the previous agenda item, there are no proposed changes to the structures themselves as far as staff is aware, um, it’s in, again, a residential area with some um uh, undeveloped land to the north some single family or multifamily, uh, land around there as well.

00:28:47,800	Legacy High School is to the south there, but both, again, both the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district would permit the existing two family dwellings to be there at the same density of units, the same number of units, the, but the difference here again is that the RM 10 zoning district would permit all of them to be

00:29:03,470	on one parcel, whereas right now they would need to be on separate parcels. Uh, the replat will also adjust some of the details regarding easements and access as necessary and the Platt area in this case is identified as being Nehood mixed use in the future land use plan, which are broadly

00:29:21,430	described as the social and commercial gathering spaces for the surrounding neighborhoods. The public was notified of this request via publications in the Bismarck Tribune on January 16th and 23rd, 17 postcards were mailed to nearby property owners on January 16, 2025, and a physical sign providing information on the project was

00:29:41,700	placed in a publicly accessible spot at the project location on January 12, 2025 as well. Uh, similarly to the first regular agenda item on today’s agenda. There is an additional notification requirement to the applicant specifically in the form of a certified letter and much like that first regular agenda item, it was not sent uh

00:30:03,600	within the 10 day prior to the public hearing time frame that city ordinance specifies, but it was sent within the five day or longer timeframe that state law requires. So that letter was sent on January 22, 2025, in addition to all of the other standard notifications that staff regularly give to the applicants of this product.

00:30:25,530	They are aware of that and they are in this case requesting a waiver from that specific Title 14 uh notification requirements. They are aware and OK with that.

00:30:47,370	And all other notification requirements to the neighborhood was met in state law and city zoning ordinance to my knowledge, staff has, uh, received one inquiry for more information on this particular request, but we have not received any formal written comments prior to this hearing, to the best of my knowledge.

00:31:02,800	So as a cumulative result of all the findings contained in this staff report, City of Bismarck’s staff find that the proposed minor subdivision final platform and accompanying zoning map Amendment would not adversely impact public health, safety, and general welfare, and that it is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan Bismarck Code of Ordinances and relevant state law.

00:31:25,430	Therefore, staff recommends approval of the zoning map Amendment from the existing R-10 residential zoning district to the RM10 residential zoning district and approval of the minor subdivision final plat titled Edward Edgewood Village, Seth edition, 2nd replant with the condition that that uh certified letter requirement in Title 14 is waived as detailed in the staff reports. Does the Commission have any questions for me at this time, Commissioners, questions for Isaac. Comm Schell, keep the streak alive here.

00:31:44,530	Um, it’s more of a statement. Isaac and M might will lead into a question for the applicant, uh, in the original platt or even the, the, the replat. as this parcel was subdivided into 50 individual lots.

00:32:03,170	There was a series of stormwater easements and access easements and water main easements established on the previous plot to allow the owner of 4045 to drain their water across the loader lots 44 property to get eventual to where it needs to get to.

00:32:18,170	With this replat because it’s being now consolidated into one owner, the need, the necessity for many of those easements is no longer there, so the stormwater easement was removed. Um, I might suggest or add that the waterman easement could probably be removed also if that’s shown on the previous la, there really isn’t, wouldn’t be a need of that dedication of that plot to themselves, uh, for water re easement, um, and I would also note that the owner’s certificate and dedication

00:32:33,170	statement probably needs to be revised that would then take a look to see which easements actually exist or will be dedicated or rededicated and citing those and then removing some of the language for the other one. So it’s not something probably actionable for you, but something I’ll maybe it’s a question for the applicant when they come up.

00:32:46,970	Thank you, Comm Schell. Thank you, Comm Schell. Commissioners, additional questions for Isaac. I’m not seeing or hearing any, Isaac. Thank you. With that, I’ll open the public hearing for this agenda item. and I see Nick is going to step back up to the podium. Yes.

00:33:10,430	Good evening, Chair Comm Nick Ulen, uh, Comm Schell, we did receive your comments regarding the water main easement as well as uh the owner’s dedication and yes we agree with those and we will remove those from the plat and make those adjustments. OK, great. Thank you. Thank you, Comm, any additional questions for Nick while we have him up? Oh Comm Schell, one more follow up.

00:33:29,170	Is there any intention of the owner to demolish the 450 structures that are on this property and build something else, uh, on this site, Chair, Comm Schell, no, there is not any plans for that. You’re welcome. All right, thank you.

00:33:44,430	With that, I don’t think there’s any additional questions for you, Nick. Thank you so much. With that, the podium is open for others that would care to speak to this agenda item. and I’m not seeing or hearing anybody, uh, jumping to the podium. So with that, I’m gonna close a public hearing. Isaac, any additional comments? No additional comments. Thank you, Chair. All right, thank you.

00:34:02,330	With that, this is a request for a zoning map amendment and a minor subdivision final plat and staff recommendation for both is to approve with conditions or single condition, uh, Commissioners, what are your wishes? I would make a motion. We approve um.

00:34:32,100	as presented with the, the, uh, condition that the Comm Schell had suggested, and they agreed to. Kate, we have a motion from Comm Wangler. Do I hear a second? OK And that was, uh, Comm Schmitz again. Yes, yes, sorry. All right, we have a second from Comm Schmitz. Thank you. Without any additional discussion, Commissioners. All right, not seeing or hearing any.

00:34:59,370	Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Johnson? Yes, Comm Swanson, yes. Comm Bittner Yes. Comm Schell, yes. Comm Schmitz Yes Mister Wengler, Comm Taylor, Chair Schwartz, yes, the motion is approved.

00:35:21,870	We will move on to item D in our regular agenda this evening, and that is Prairie Place Subdivision, Block 2, Lot 4, less the West 240 ft, and Jenie is going to provide us with staff report this evening. Evening, Chair Schwartz, Commissioners, Jordan and Amanda Williams are requesting approval of a rural residential lot split to split lot 4, lest the West 200 ft block 2 Prairie Place Subdivision.

00:35:43,730	The request is located north of Bismarck, north of 43rd Avenue, Northeast, between 26th Street Northeast and Centennial Road along the north and west sides of Wild Rose Crescent. The request would split lot 4 lest the West 240 ft north to south, creating two separate parcels.

00:36:08,230	The western parcel would be approx im ate ly 75,000,960 square feet and include an existing single family residential dwelling and um accessory buildings, the eastern parcel would be approximately 68,900 square feet. The applicant has indicated that they are proposing to construct a new single family dwelling on this parcel. The property is located within the rural residential zoning district, the minimum lot size for a property.

00:36:28,000	With this district is 65,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 150 ft and a depth of 200 ft, both proposed parcels meet these requirements. The property is surrounded by rural residential single family uses and zoning.

00:36:48,870	If approved as proposed, the Burley County Tax tax equalization director has requested that a deed transferring the ownership of the eastern parcel is recorded with the Burleigh County Recorder’s Office before the issuance of a building permit. Hick Creek Township was notified of this request on January 6th.

00:37:06,100	The public has also been notified and a notice was published in the Tribune on January 16th and 23rd and 61 postcards were mailed to the owners of nearby properties on January 16th. We did receive one written comment that was distributed to you prior to the meeting, and I received one phone call, neither for or against their request, just an inquiry. Additionally, a physical sign providing information on the hearing was placed in an accessible spot on the project on January 12th.

00:37:26,730	This request was evaluated according to the standards contained within our comprehensive plan, Code of Ordinances and state law, and as a result of the findings contained in the staff report, Staff prime that the proposed Ru resident residentiallo split would not adversely impact the public health, safety, and general welfare and is consistent with our comprehensive plan, Code of

00:37:44,900	Ordinances and state law. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rural residential lot split of lot 4 lest the West 240 ft, block 2 Prairie Place Subdivision with the following condition. that that de transferring ownership of the eastern parcel is recorded with the Burley County recorder prior to the issuance of a building permit.

00:38:04,630	Do you have questions? Commissioners, questions for Janie. Comm Schell Jenny, 22 questions, one being, I guess, was the Burleigh County Highway Department express any concerns with additional access points that would be envisioned or generated from this lot split and then second question would be, um, are we aware of any, uh covenants or anything else in

00:38:28,100	this neighborhood that would, even though by city ordinances or, or county ordinances allow the lot split but still not through covenants or some private issue not allow them to build a house or do whatever they might want to do. Sure. Thank you, Comm Schell.

00:38:42,600	Comm, I’ll take the last one first regarding covenants, I’m not aware of any. The applicant is here and perhaps they have some additional information. Um, Burleigh County, um, Highway Department is always part of our review process, especially for properties in our ETA, um the county, um, representative is here today to answer any questions.

00:39:02,970	Um, I’m unaware if they have any concerns regarding an additional access. and he’s shaking his head no. Thank you. OK, thank you, Jenny. Thank you, Comm Schell. Comm, any additional questions for Jenny? Jenny, just one other question. This is Mayor Schmidt’s. So what are the, do you know what the typical lot sizes are and the rest of the, the rest of the development.

00:39:23,070	because when I look at the lots next to it, I think. the lot split seems to equalize them, but I might be misreading it. Mayor Schmidt’s Comm Yeah, I, I would say that the lot sizes and the rest of the development are fairly similar to the proposed parcel sizes with this rural residential

00:39:42,270	split. This lot was when it was plotted was much larger than the properties adjacent, so it had has the opportunity to split further. Thank you Thank you, Comm Schmitz. With that any additional questions for Jenie? Comm Wenger, Wangelen Wangler, thank you.

00:40:08,530	When I, when I look at, at, uh, the aerial shot here, there, it looks to be two accessory buildings on that property. um coming down to the 76,000 square feet at the western parcel would be. Does that fit within the size requirements. of buildings I, I know the city Comm, I think voted last night to go to a what, a 4% of total land.

00:40:35,100	They did. On the EPA or something like that. Yes, they did 4% of the, the area of the, the property. I cannot do that quick math right here, but I think one of my cohorts can do that at the table. if you wanted to double check. I apologize. I should have that ready for you.

00:40:55,370	So it looks to me like, you know, 4% of that would be what uh 3100 square foot building probably would be the largest building that accessory could be on that. within that area and I guess I’m just curious if the accessory building. would fit within that Mr.

00:41:21,530	Wangelli you can ask the question when we get the gentleman up here again, OK? Do you have the number, Isaac? Uh, yes, for the, the Western, uh, new parcel as proposed 4% would be approximately, you know, 3040 square feet. Well done, sir Both, both of you. All right. Thank you.

00:41:45,330	I don’t think there are any more questions for you, Jenny. Thank you. With that, we’ll open the public hearing for this, uh, agenda item. Would either the requester or a representative would be here to speak to this. And if you add your name to the log there, that would be wonderful and introduce yourself. Uh, good evening. My name is Jordan Williams.

00:42:03,230	and we are the, the requesters. Very good So to answer the question about square footage, the square footage of our current house has roughly 1000 square foot footprint on the house, the detached garage, it does not have an attached garage. It is also roughly 1000 square feet and then detached shed is 16 by 24.

00:42:29,370	Comm Wangler, so that would be well within the 30 or 3000 square feet that. Yep. Would be allowed on that parcel. OK, thank you. Thank you, Comm Wangler. Any other additional information you think you could share with us or need to? OK, Commissioners, uh, Comm Schell.

00:42:51,630	uh I guess maybe could you answer any knowledge that you have of covenants in the area that just want to make sure that we’re not, not that the city or the county could have enforced covenants, but just want to make sure that it’s something that you’re aware of, if that’s an issue.

00:43:03,000	Yeah, when we got the hosts, there’s, there’s no covenants prohibiting it, um, the original plot, it was a 5 acre lot that was owned by the developer. And when he developed the land and moved the house out there in 7, 72 or 73. The house was originally down where the gas station is right west of Sanford. It’s built in 1920.

00:43:19,000	Um, they did originally split the West side 240 ft off originally, um, so it has been split once and then the East side so that it would match the other sides or sides of the other lots, um, still has room to be split off to match. OK thank you. Thank you, Comm Schell. Additional questions for Dre.

00:43:38,270	I’m not seeing any Jordan. Thank you. With that, the podium is open for others that would care to address this agenda item. Good evening, Commissioners. My name’s John Faskowski. I’m a, uh, I live in the neighborhood out there.

00:44:05,600	Just wanted to make the commission aware that there are covenants that exist for that uh subdivision, as the applicant alluded to, I don’t believe there’s anything that precludes this, but there are covenants that exist for that area. That’s good to know. Thank you. um Comm, any questions for for John? John, I’m not seeing or hearing any. So thank you. You bet.

00:44:31,630	With that, the podium is open for others that would care to speak to this agenda item. and I’m not seeing or hearing anybody getting up to the podium. So with that, I’m gonna close a public hearing.

00:44:52,630	Uh, Commissioners, this is a request for a rural residential lot split and uh staff recommenda excuse me, uh, Jenny, do you have any final comments, Mr. Chair? No, thank you for asking. Right. Thank you. Um, this is a request for a rural residential lot split. Staff’s recommendation is to approve with a single condition. What are your wishes Move to approve as presented. We have a motion to approve from Comm Schmitz.

00:45:14,900	The second from Comm Johnson. Any additional discussion? and seeing or hearing none, Sarah, would you please call Roll? Comm Johnson? Yes, Comm Swanson, yes, Comm Schmitz Yes, Comm Wengler, Comm Schell? Yes. Comm Taylor. Comm Bitner. Yes. And Char Schwartz. Yes, the motion is approved. With that, that wraps up our regular agenda for this evening.

00:45:43,730	Uh, we have some other business and I, I asked, um, we had, we had kind of an interesting uh uh agenda item at the end of our December meeting and I asked Daniel if he would kind of give us a follow up on it.

00:46:01,000	Um, we sent it on its way, but I was curious if the way we handled it, um helped to expedite things or what actually happened. If you don’t mind addressing that. Sure, thank you. Excuse me, Daniel, I was just gonna say it is, uh, it was the Water’s 17th edition Block to a special use.

00:46:18,500	Sure, thank you, Chair Schwartz, and, and if any of you have any uh questions or curious about how things ended up after it goes through your table, you’re always welcome to ask, and we can give a report.

00:46:32,900	So in this particular one, this was a drive-through, uh, special use permit that you uh heard last month. Uh, you had approved it with two conditions. One condition is that an easement or validated by staff, uh, to give an extra foot of allowable use on the adjacent property for that lane of the drive-through. Uh, and the second condition was related to the landscaping on, on the lot.

00:46:50,530	Uh, we did receive an easement, uh, Gabe and, and myself reviewed and and found it to do what it said it would do, uh, and so it does give that allowance for use of the property. Uh, so we, uh, forwarded that information on to the applicant. Um, and it was recorded, I believe.

00:47:04,970	Uh, we, we’ve checked the recorder’s office and that easement has been recorded. Uh, we have not received a site plan, uh, today. And so that would be the next step, uh, and we also haven’t received the building permit for the structural alterations to actually put in the drive-through. So those things are forthcoming. Uh, we expect them to be uh, coming to us soon.

00:47:20,970	for that project. OK, well, thank you. I was just curious and that satisfies it All right, well, we’re down to our, uh, organizational part of the meeting uh for uh for 2026, and that would be an election of a chair and vice chair, and, uh

00:47:39,000	I am willing to once again sit as your chair if you so decide, uh, it will require uh a nomination and a vote. So with that, I’ll open the Flori denominations. to nominate Chair Schwartz OK. And with that, I’ll close the nominating. Um, all in favor say aye. Those opposed the same.

00:48:05,230	All right, thank you. And with that, we’ll move on to the uh the vice chairir position. I would nominate Cole Johnson for vice Chair. 2. All right, we have a motion in a second. And with that, I’ll close the nominations if there are no more. Um, all in favor say aye. Aye, and those opposed, same sign.

00:48:29,700	None? OK. Thank you, Cole. All right, we’ve got, uh, a Chair and vice chair in place, uh, Daniel, did you want to, uh speak to training at all Sure, thank you, Chair Schwartz. This is more of a question for the group.

00:48:47,870	Uh, as you know, we, we’ve, uh, stated intent to have some training for all of you, uh for the planning zoning Commission. It’s been a number of years since we’ve really had a, had a meeting where we’ve all sat down together at a table and, and talked over the role and, and some of the tools that you have available.

00:49:02,270	Uh, so the question we have is we’d like to schedule this as a special meeting, uh, and it’ll still be a public meeting. It’ll all be open to the public, anyone who may join, uh, but we would probably have it at a different venue, maybe upstairs, a table where we could all sit around.

00:49:16,800	The, and the question I’d have is, is for scheduling purposes, what I can do is I can send out a poll to all of you and you can indicate your availability. Is there a preference for a meeting in the evening such as this one, another, another night and the evening or to do it earlier in the day, perhaps in an afternoon, uh, before one of these meetings.

00:49:32,730	So I’ll leave that up to you and uh, and then I can send some dates out once you give some preferences. Daniel, do you, can you anticipate or have an idea how long the training would last? I think 1 hour and a half was what I was considering for that, uh, to allow enough time

00:49:47,700	for presentations and questions and in North Dakota Planning Association, I, I believe we’ll be able to send somebody to join with us and give another outside impression as well. OK. That sounds good. Thank you. So everybody will get an opportunity to, uh pick an evening that works, and I think you’ll enjoy the training.

00:50:06,070	Uh, I’ve been through it before and, and, uh, it kind of helps um layout for how we do things on this uh commission and it’ll help you feel more comfortable, um sitting here and asking questions and all of that good stuff, so. thank you. Uh, with that, our next meeting is going to be on February 25th.

00:50:29,900	and uh with that, I’ll Adjourn the meeting and thank you all for